DRUGS ARE BAD, BUT THEY'RE GOOD ENOUGH

There's an interesting debate going on now about the nature of our
drug laws.

If you look on the Odessa American's website and read some of the
comments to the Kopbusters sting and related articles, between the
specifics of the Yolanda Madden case and the hoax itself, and
ignoring a lot of abusive language, there's a conversation about
illegal drugs, law enforcement and the criminal justice system, and
what should be done about it.

Maybe we're at a place where we can talk about the issue without
shrillness or hyperbole, because everyone can admit something
definitely isn't right.

There are some good reasons for keeping things as they are. In the
words of Mr. Mackey, "Drugs are bad, m'kay?" Even substances with
fairly mild short-term effects cause serious health problems after
years of regular use. Legal drugs, and those with legitimate uses
like methamphetamine and opiates, are still incredibly dangerous when
self-prescribed.

Most people do behave worse with inhibitions removed than otherwise.
Those of us who value freedom and choice can still admit that an
addict has a value system chemically altered and an ability to choose
hampered. Probably the world would be a better place if no one ever
got intoxicated, but this is a fanciful hypothetical and must be
regarded as such.

Illegal drugs are associated with other inarguably unacceptable
activities. While it might be hard to connect a gang-member to a
particular shooting, it isn't hard to throw him in jail for the rock
of crack in his pocket. It's much easier to arrest someone for
having something than for doing anything.

Finally, making a thing illegal does stop many people from doing it.
For all the reputation national alcohol prohibition in the '20s has
as being a complete failure, it was successful in reducing alcohol
consumption.

But during that same time, organized crime increased; violent crimes
increased. Less people were picked up for vagrancy and more for
bootlegging, less for domestic abuse and more for murder. So what is
reducing consumption good for?

Today, as bad as gang violence may get in East L.A., it's nothing
compared to what Ciudad Juarez is experiencing, nothing compared to
what Colombia has suffered from its various drug cartels. A young man
dying in an alley of an overdose is a fruit of drug use, but a young
woman caught by a car bomb in Mexico is a fruit of drug
prohibition.

It may be easier for law enforcement to put bad people away by
throwing the book at them for drugs they possess, but it also creates
an entirely new class of criminal: those who've done nothing wrong.

A person smoking marijuana is no more harmful than a person drinking
a beer, and probably less so. Why spend resources to capture and
incarcerate or otherwise punish a person who has as yet done no harm?
Why, in a world of murderers, rapists, arsonists and thieves, should
seizing large quantities of a substance earn high prestige? Because
there's a dollar-value attached to it?

Law enforcement officers have a very difficult job, and most do the
best they can at it. However, prohibition laws have an inherently
corrupting effect on police. Drug use is not plainly immoral, the
drug trade is impossible to meaningfully curb, and the business is
highly lucrative. Rare is the person who'd look the other way to let
a rapist keep terrorizing people, but doubling your paycheck to let
through something that will probably get through regardless? Pinning
an unrelated homicide on a murderer leaves some other crime
unsolved, but why not plant drugs on a known drug dealer if you can
get away with it? The result is the same, it's less messy, and you
get recognition for benefiting society.

I'm not saying the majority of cops behave or think this way, but
there's a temptation to subvert laws that doesn't have to exist.
There are police resources, court fees, and prison cells wasted on
people who have yet hurt no one, and it's hurting our country.

Yes, a meth addict will make poor decisions, and may behave in a way
that will endanger others. Certainly, long-term use is dangerous to
his or her self. But it's enough to arrest him for immediate danger,
not possible danger. Because certainly, people cooking meth in their
homes and settling arguments with guns instead of through the courts
is dangerous, too.

There's no easy or good answer, to this or most things in life.
Alcohol probably has an overall degenerative effect on our society.
But, prohibition's effect was worse, and we have rightly chosen the
lesser evil, regulated and taxed it. Doing so hasn't made the
country a utopia or solved all problems in the criminal justice
system, but a modern Al Capone can't build an empire with alcohol,
either.

We pray for miracles; we can only legislate practicalities.

What we have now isn't good. Changing our approach won't be, either,
but it will be better, and hopefully that'll be good enough.